Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 April 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 29

Kyrgyzstan pronunciation

How is Kyrgyzstan pronounced in Kyrgyz? --108.206.4.199 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

qɯrʁɯzstɑn. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the “q” not capitalized? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a question about pronunciation, not spelling. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The q isn't capitalized in Seb az's response because he was using the IPA, in which all the symbols are lowercase (though some of them, such as ɪ and ʙ, were based on the uppercase Latin letters). Lesgles (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l'Océanie sur les corvettes L'Astrolabe et La Zélée

(moved here from the Humanities reference desk:)

Is there an online translation of Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l'Océanie sur les corvettes L'Astrolabe et La Zélée in English?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of a translation can be found here [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Adjectival form of "species"

I'm discussing literary passages that speak of evil individuals in non-human terms ("monster", "diabolical", etc.) and wish to use a term such as "extra-species" to refer to the fact that all of the phrases in question refer to them as non-humans. But what's the right form of "species" to use in this case? "Extraspecific" makes it sound as if there's an extraordinarily high level of detail, and "extraspecies" makes it sound as if we added an additional species. I've already checked OED without finding anything useful. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

hah, I see what you did there! - filelakeshoe 08:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As you are only appear to be talking about humans which are described in this fashion, how about something like "extra-human". The OED recognises it in this context: "Various monstrous natures, ultra~human and extra-human, who cannot with propriety be called gods." - G. Grote (1846) 129.234.53.19 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The adjectival form of "species" is "species". That might not be a very helpful answer, but it is the only legitimate answer. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I realise it doesn't really answer your question, but would 'subhuman' work in this context? - Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The term subhuman (see the article Untermensch) gained a very specific meaning in the 3rd Reich. It was applied generally to Jewish and Slavic ethnicities who were considered to be inferior to the Master Race. I would avoid this term at all costs, particularly in an academic environment, where the racist / supremacist usage of the expression will be known. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

True, stupid of me, though of course the Nazis were doing the same rhetorical trick as the one to which the OP is referring. Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dying a happy death, etc

You might kill me, but I wouldn't die you -- I'd just die. Die is after all intransitive. Except that if I were a washed-up rock star and you a hooker, I might die a happy death, which indeed is so humdrum as to be a cliche. However, it's part of a pattern: I can laugh a big laugh, grin a toothy grin etc. (There are limits: my teeth can't decay a terrible decay, etc.)

A year or two back I read a paper about this limited ability to [verb] an [adjective] [noun], where the verb is otherwise intransitive and the verb and noun semantically near-identical. Now I'd like to reread it, or a paper on the same subject; but stabs with a search engine haven't succeeded. Does this pattern have a name; or can anyone think of a paper?

(Or, failing that, is there a similar phenomenon in any other language that you know?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, to quote from our page on cognate object:

In linguistics, a cognate object (or cognate accusative) is a verb's object that is etymologically related to the verb. More specifically, the verb is one that is ordinarily intransitive (lacking any object), and the cognate object is simply the verb's noun form. For example, in the sentence He slept a troubled sleep, sleep is the cognate object of the verb slept.

That page has a link to a discussion at Linguist List which also gives a load of references, one of which might be to the paper you originally read. --Antiquary (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The cognate accusative in Biblical Hebrew has been intensively studied, and there's a large literature on the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It shows up in the Latin Bible too, although in that case I suppose it may be copied from the Greek (which maybe influenced by the Hebrew as AnonMoos mentions). The example that sprung to mind right away is "bonum certamen certavi", "I fought the good fight", 2 Timothy 4:7. I'm sure it occurs in classical Latin too, but I'd have to do some searching. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, "cognate object" or "cognate accusative". Of course I'm familiar with all three words, but neither combination sounds familiar. Thank you all; now I know what to look for.

I'd also utterly forgotten "fight the good fight" and "live one's / an [adj] life", which even if calques are certainly part of my idiolect.

There are indeed a lot of good tips (and searchable author name) in the Linguist List issue. There's good material within it, too. Samuel E. Martin says that "the structure has never been particularly productive" in Japanese, which goes unmentioned in the ja:WP article (merely a translation of an earlier version of the "cognate object" article). Meanwhile, the corresponding fr:WP article doesn't mention mot apparenté or accusatif, and is coherent; but it's not as interesting as Meri E Larjavaara's reasoned observation that "In modern French the notion of cognate object seems to have no other use than to justify the presence of an object with some verbs which most often do not have one." -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The only one I can think of in French is "chanter un chanson" (or "un chant"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ne preoccuper-toi si ce n'est pas tant bonne parce que personne la entende ... --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor French! Seems to be a google "translation" of "don't worry if it's not good enough for anyone else to hear"... (Ne t'en fais pas si ce n'est pas assez bon, car personne d'autre n'entend) Aside: chanson is feminine: une chanson — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Phonology

I have a set of data (words) from a language and am asked whether two phonetically similar phones are allophones of a single phoneme. There are no minimal pairs, but also no immediately clear complementary distribution. Is there a sense in which the data set can be "under-determined", or is the absence of a minimal pair (coupled with phonetic similarity) enough by itself to establish allophony? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is a homework assignment (i.e. the data set is controlled by someone who knows the answer), I'd say first look harder for conditions of complementary distribution. Sometimes the conditions triggering allophony are more remote than students might expect: don't just look in adjacent phones, also look in neighboring syllables, and don't rule out possibilities that seem unlikely. When I used to teach phonology, I would have rather seen a student give a phonologically highly implausible answer like "high vowels become mid after voiced stops" (provided the data actually bore that out) than throw up their hands and say "I can't determine whether these are allophones or separate phonemes". Certainly the absence of minimal pairs is no proof allophony, though as an argument from silence it can be a good hint. Angr (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have multiple instances of near-minimal pairs (differing by only two phones), so it seems highly unlikely that these are allophones. I'm fairly confident that the only complementary distribution you could state would be to list the entire data set -- i.e. the environments couldn't really be described without using the whole set -- but is that enough? I mean, if you don't have minimal pairs, don't you technically have a complementary distribution, even if it's really ugly? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe the best thing is to say "the near minimal pairs make it likely that these are separate phonemes; the only way they could be allophones is if the difference between them is conditioned by this other thing that's really far away and doesn't seem likely to be relevant". At least that shows the professor you understand the task and how to go about solving it. Angr (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Language poster

On this poster [2], I am told there are some incorrect translations. Can someone (or more likely multiple people) assist so I can make a correct version? Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure others have more precise answers. But things I notice include:

• The Spanish alone says "United States" rather than "America"
• The German uses the familiar "sprich" followed by the formal "Sie". I rather think "die gewünschte Sprache" means "the wished-for language" rather than "the language you want", but I'm not certain.
• The Russian contains "все" ("all") which isn't in the others. I'm also dubious about the construction: I don't think you can use "что" lake that. I suspect it means "All speak, that you want language". I think it would be "Говорите по языку, которий хотите". --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  This is unfortunately still wrong, see below. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Or if you want to get the "whatever" in more specifically, "по чему-нибудь языку" ("in whatever language"). --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Latin: Why "americae" in the genetive (or plural?). And "quidquid" does not agree with "lingua". I'm not sure the construction works either, but perhaps "hic america est. quaquid vis lingua loqui" would be comprehensible.
• I've a feeling the Welsh ought to have the relative particle "a dymunwch" rather than the normal particle "y dymunwuch". --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The point about Spanish and "United States" actually does make a little bit of sense. Most languages accept to some extent the equation of America and United States, but Spanish speakers tend to be particularly prickly about it, because of Latin America. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• The last part of the second German sentence is totally incorrect. If you want it right I suggest to reword it completely, like Fine's Russian translation. Otherwise, I suggest: "Das ist Amerika. Sprich die Sprache die du bevorzugst/ die due dir wünschst."--GoP_T^C_N 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Czech should read "To je Amerika. Mluvte v jakémkoliv jazyce, co chcete" or "...Mluv v jakémkoliv jazyce, co chceš". It still sounds a bit unnatural in my opinion, there's probably a better way of saying it similar to the "dowolnym językem" in the Polish. But the big big error is that "mluv" (singular) and "chcete" (plural) don't agree. - filelakeshoe 17:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The French seems okay. The Latin should be "Haec est America. Loqui quamquam linguam vis". The Arabic seems wrong but I'll leave it to someone wiser to fix that. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My "quaquid" was obviously nonsense, but surely it should be ablative? "Quaqua lingua"? Actually, looking it up I found a better solution: "Haec america est. quavis lingua loqui". --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why ablative? "Loqui" is often followed by the name of a language turned into an adverb (latine, anglice, etc), but it normally takes a direct object in the accusative. And "quavis" (or "quamvis" actually) would work for "whatever", but it doesn't replace a verb, so you'd need to repeat "vis", or "malis" or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll have a go at the Arabic too. "America" was spelled wrong and the verb wasn't imperative. If I'm not way off, it would be "هذه هي امريكا. اتكلم كل ما اللغة التي تريدها". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest "Dies ist Amerika. Sprich ruhig jede Sprache, die dir beliebt." or "Dies ist Amerika. Du kannst hier jede Sprache sprechen, die du magst." for German. "Das ist Amerika" sounds like you are standing outside America and pointing at it. "Dies" is the appropiate translation for "this". The second part is a bit hard to translate smoothly. "die dir beliebt" sounds a bit uncolloquial, but is a more exact translation than "die du magst". --::Slomox:: >< 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't Spanish-speakers typically refer to the USA as [los] estados unidos rather than America? If so, then the Spanish translation is fine. It translates back as, "This is United States. To speak the idom which you desire." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

But shouldn't it be "Estos son las Estados Unidos" rather than "Esto es Estados Unidos"? Angr (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In English, we use USA as both a single and a plural, depending on context. Maybe they do likewise in Spanish. Or, maybe the translator got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Check the USA article in the Spanish wikipedia,[3] and you'll see they refer to the USA in the singular: es rather than son. That would be because they are talking about it as a nation rather than a collection of individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Dutch one doesn't capture the "whatever" part, and uses the formal "u". If that's what you want, I would suggest "Dit is Amerika. Spreek welke taal u maar wilt.". The informal version would then be "Dit is Amerika. Spreek welke taal je maar wil." Thayts (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Russian: Это Америка. Говорите на любом языке. This is "speak any language". Literal translation is more awkward: Это Америка. Говорите на каком хотите языке.
• Ukrainian: Це Амеріка. Розмовляйте будь-якою мовою. This is "speak any language", literal translation is awkward: Це Амеріка. Розмовляйте якою бажаєте мовою. 99.113.32.198 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Albanian: This is a translation in Albanian, Kjo është Amerika. Flisni çfarëdo gjuhe që të dëshironi! -  Euriditi  16:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Lithuanian: Čia Amerika. Kalbėk kokia tik nori kalba. --88.222.65.39 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of all languages in the poster, from top to bottom:

• French
• Spanish
• German
• Italian
• Russian
• Hebrew
• Greek
• Arabic
• Swahili
• Vietnamese
• Swedish
• Lithuanian
• Latin
• Hindi
• Czech
• Portuguese
• Polish
• Icelandic
• Thai
• Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian (Serbo-Croatian)
• Tagalog (Filipino)
• Welsh
• Ukrainian
• Klingon
• Dutch
• Albanian
• Japanese
• Chinese
• Korean
• English (original)

With almost all languages I'm familiar with, there is something that definitely strikes me as wrong. However, in most cases, I don't have the enough level of fluency to provide decent and natural-sounding translations. My language isn't there. --Theurgist (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese sentence is in traditional Chinese, and it says "This is America. What language do you want to speak." (The second sentence is a question but is ended with a full stop, not a question mark.) I can't think of a simple idiomatic translation of the English message, but perhaps something like "这里是美国。说你想说的语言。" (in simplified CHinese; the traditional Chinese equivalent is "這裡是美國。說你想說的語言。") -- This is more or less idiomatic and translates literally to "This (here) is America (country, not continent). Speak the language that you want to speak." I think this captures the idea being conveyed relatively well while still being idiomatic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Are these the result of machine translation ? If so it would be nice to know the original text (I am assuming English going by the errors) and which system was used. - Francis Tyers · 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By language

Quick jump: question fr es de it ru he el ar sw vi sv lt la hi cs pt pl is th sh tl cy uk tlh nl sq ja zh ko en generic

Let me organize all the results by language.

Feel free to comment in this section, but follow the normal conventions of the reference desk: sign your comments, and do not remove others' comments. (If you dislike this arrangement, you can just comment above or below this section.)

I have copied most existing comments from outside in this section, this copying marked by “(M)” after the sig. If you all are satisfied with this arrangement, we could put the unorganized part in a collapsible box.

The "original" should be the text present on the picture provided by OP. Sorry for any transcription errors I made, and if you find one, please correct it.

– b_jonas 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeat of the question

On this poster [4], I am told there are some incorrect translations. Can someone (or more likely multiple people) assist so I can make a correct version? Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

French

Original: C'est l'Amérique. Parlez la langue que vous voulez.

The French seems okay. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

I think more idiomatic would be (as with the other Romance languages): "Nous sommes aux États-Unis, parlez la langue que vous voulez!" or "Vous êtes aux États-Unis, parlez la langue que vous voulez!" - Francis Tyers · 15:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you really use the vous form here? I'm almost certain that in Italian you would go informal on a poster of this sort. Also Italians have no problem saying America for the US; don't know about French. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, "Amérique" is the Americas in general, and "Etats-Unis" is the United States, but "américain" specifically refers to the United States. (I admit my experience is basically limited to the people I work with and may not be typical!) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this is America conveys a particular idea that this is the United States doesn't really get across. Probably this is America is untranslatable into French (which is not to say the idea can't be explained in French; it just wouldn't be a single pithy phrase like that). --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"C'est l'Amérique !" is a French expression that refers to the "American dream". In this expression "Amérique" is USA. See here. That's why I prefer the original "C'est l'Amérique. Parlez..." rather than "Nous sommes aux États-Unis, parlez...". — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanish

Original: Esto es Estados Unidos. Hablar el idioma que desee.

The Spanish alone says "United States" rather than "America" --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

I responded to that point above, up in the all-languages section. --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't Spanish-speakers typically refer to the USA as [los] estados unidos rather than America? If so, then the Spanish translation is fine. It translates back as, "This is United States. To speak the idom which you desire." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

But shouldn't it be "Estos son las Estados Unidos" rather than "Esto es Estados Unidos"? Angr (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

In English, we use USA as both a single and a plural, depending on context. Maybe they do likewise in Spanish. Or, maybe the translator got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Check the USA article in the Spanish wikipedia,[5] and you'll see they refer to the USA in the singular: es rather than son. That would be because they are talking about it as a nation rather than a collection of individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Not consistently. Further down we read En el siglo XIX, los Estados Unidos adquirieron territorios...., which uses the plural verb adquirieron. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the verb number, it needs an article los. —Tamfang (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds awkward, too literal. I think it would be better: "Estamos en los Estados Unidos. Habla en el idioma que quieras!" (In Catalan/Valencian: "Som als Estats Units. Parla la llengua que vulgues!") But if you want to be literal "Esto es los EEUU..." and I guess it would be understandable. If you want Basque then "Estatu Batuetan gaude, nahi duzun hitzkuntza hitz egin!" might work. - Francis Tyers · 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd use Estos son los Estados Unidos. Habla el idioma que desees, literally "These are the United States. Speak whichever language you wish". The words in the first sentence have to be in plural, since Spanish speakers refer to the United States using the masculine plural los, i.e. los Estados Unidos. Habla, in the second sentence, is the imperative form of the infinitive hablar. --190.19.75.190 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

German

Original: Das ist Amerika. Sprich, was auch immer Sie die gewünschte Sprache.

The German uses the familiar "sprich" followed by the formal "Sie". I rather think "die gewünschte Sprache" means "the wished-for language" rather than "the language you want", but I'm not certain. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

The last part of the second German sentence is totally incorrect. If you want it right I suggest to reword it completely, like Fine's Russian translation. Otherwise, I suggest: "Das ist Amerika. Sprich die Sprache die du bevorzugst/ die due dir wünschst."--GoP_T^C_N 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

I suggest "Dies ist Amerika. Sprich ruhig jede Sprache, die dir beliebt." or "Dies ist Amerika. Du kannst hier jede Sprache sprechen, die du magst." for German. "Das ist Amerika" sounds like you are standing outside America and pointing at it. "Dies" is the appropiate translation for "this". The second part is a bit hard to translate smoothly. "die dir beliebt" sounds a bit uncolloquial, but is a more exact translation than "die du magst". --::Slomox:: >< 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Those are two quite different suggestions from native German speakers. Are their dialect differences in play here? I don't see where "auch immer" in the original or "due" in GOP's or "ruhig" in Slomox's version are coming from. I thought "Hier ist Amerika." would work for the fist sentence. "Sprich du, was Sprache du wunsche." is Babelfish's suggestion (or would be if it avoided formal pronouns). Rmhermen (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Pumpkin's version is a bit too much influenced by the English original and doesn't sound very natural to me. Slomox's versions both sound good, although "die dir beliebt" is a bit too formal for my taste. I would go for something even further away from the English, for instance: "Wir sind hier in Amerika. Sprich, wie du willst." That avoids the need of a nominal relative clause around "language", which is a bit awkward in German. BTW, the babelfish version "Sprich du, was Sprache du wunsche" sounds absolutely hilarious to me. I spontaneously imagine somebody saying that with a heavy Kietzdeutsch (urban immigrant vernacular) accent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but my immediate thought was that a paraphrase using irgendwelche might work - "speak whatever language you wish". Would that work, and can someone more knowledgeable put together an appropriate construction? Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Italian

Original: Questa é l'America. Parla qualunque lingua che si desidera.

I would go with Questa è l'America. Parla quello che ti pare. The original comes out something like "speak whatever language is desired", which is an odd mix of a personal imperative parla with an impersonal desire.

Note the grave rather than acute è — not a huge error but you might as well get it right. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, my translation is a little "free". If you want a more literal translation, you could go with Parla qualsiasi lingua che vuoi.

I also notice that in some of the other languages you've used the formal version of "you", but that would be a little strange in Italian. The formal lei (or regionally, voi) is addressed to individuals, but not usually to unnamed readers of posters. (I kind of suspect that that's true in some of the other languages as well, but I don't know them well enough to be sure.) --Trovatore (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more point — following the lead of a commentator in the Spanish section, I would prefer siamo in America to questa è l'America. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Russian

Original: Это Америка. Говорите все, что язык вы хотите.

The Russian contains "все" ("all") which isn't in the others. I'm also dubious about the construction: I don't think you can use "что" lake that. I suspect it means "All speak, that you want language". I think it would be "Говорите по языку, которий хотите". --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

This is unfortunately still wrong, see below. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Or if you want to get the "whatever" in more specifically, "по чему-нибудь языку" ("in whatever language"). --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Russian: Это Америка. Говорите на любом языке. This is "speak any language". Literal translation is more awkward: Это Америка. Говорите на каком хотите языке. 99.113.32.198 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

If you still want to include the "you want" part, you could say (clunkily) "Это Америка. Говорите на языке, на котором хотите говорить." Lit. "This is America. Speak in the language in which you want to speak." Russian, like some of the other languages here, requires a stricter relationship between the main clause and the relative clause. "Который хотите" would mean that you want the language, i.e., that you want to own it. I would also go with "Говорите на любом языке." (@Colin: По is used only in the fixed adverbs по-русски, по-немецки, etc.; otherwise, на is used.)Lesgles (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew

Original: זוהי אמריקה. לדבר בכל שפה שתרצה.

I'm no expert on Hebrew grammar, but I'm fairly certain the imperative of "speak" is incorrectly rendered as an infinitive ("to speak"). It could be that this kind of use of infinitive can be read as an imperative, so I'll ask someone to check. If I'm correct, I think fixing it is just a matter of dropping the ל but again, I'm no expert. --Dweller (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a native Hebrew speaker, and Dweller is correct. 87.68.74.201 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence is fine as is. For the second, I would replace the infinitive with the imperative, either the gender-marked 2nd person M/F singular (דבר/י בכל שפה שמתחשק לך), or the far more conventional and purportedly gender-neutral 2nd person [m.] plural (דברו בכל שפה שמתחשק לכם). I also made an idiomatic substitution of the verb: "you desire/please/feel like" rather than "you want." -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker either (barely a speaker at all, actually), but it looks to me like that ל is misplaced as well. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek

Original: Αυτή είναι η Αμερική. Μιλήστε ό, τι γλώσσα που θέλετε.

Better (but I'm not a native speaker): "Εδώ είναι η Αμερική. Μίλα ό,τι γλώσσα θέλεις". I've changed "this is" to "here is", which I believe is more idiomatic in Greek. I've also changed the formal to the familiar form of address, and the perfective imperative to the imperfective one. Also, "ό,τι" is spelled like this, with no spaces around the comma (the comma is part of the word, strangely), and it doesn't trigger a "να" on the following verb. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabic

Original: هذه هي أميركا. يتكلم كل ما اللغة التي تريدها.

The Arabic seems wrong but I'll leave it to someone wiser to fix that. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Well I'll have a go at the Arabic too. "America" was spelled wrong and the verb wasn't imperative. If I'm not way off, it would be "هذه هي امريكا. اتكلم كل ما اللغة التي تريدها". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Swahili

Original: Hii Marekani ni. Kuzungumza lugha yoyote unataka.

I'm not a native Swahili speaker, but I would say this: Hapa ndipo Marekani. Zungumza lugha yoyote unayotaka. Dogo (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese

Original: Đây là Mỹ. Nói bất cứ ngôn ngữ bạn muốn.

Swedish

Original: Detta är Amerika. Tala det språk du vill.

Seems OK to me (as a Norwegian)... V85 (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but to me this says 'That is America. Speak the language that you like' - someone below noticed a general problem with the translations giving the 'language you like' sense. I'm not at all confident in making up something better, but what about 'Det här är Amerika. Du får tala vilket språk som helst.' (literally, 'This here is America. You can speak whatever language.') - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I think that the first part is fine and that the second part as written means more 'speak the language that you wish/want', which I think is also fine. Mikenorton (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker and to me the second sentence is correct but personally I would prefer "Tala vilket språk du vill." Not for any reason except that it sounds better to me and that "vilket" more implies a choice. When I googled "det/vilket språk du vill" I got exactly the same number of hits (7) so Swedes seem to use both alternatives equally.Sjö (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lithuanian

Original: Tai Amerika. Kalbėk kokia kalba norite.

Tai Amerika. Kalbėk kokia tik nori kalba. Hugo.arg (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Can the singular in the second sentence be made plural by replacing "kalbėk" and "nori" with "kalbėkite" and "norite"? --Theurgist (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Latin

Original: Hoc est Americae. Loqui quidquid lingua vis.

Latin: Why "americae" in the genetive (or plural?). And "quidquid" does not agree with "lingua". I'm not sure the construction works either, but perhaps "hic america est. quaquid vis lingua loqui" would be comprehensible. --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

The Latin should be "Haec est America. Loqui quamquam linguam vis". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

My "quaquid" was obviously nonsense, but surely it should be ablative? "Quaqua lingua"? Actually, looking it up I found a better solution: "Haec america est. quavis lingua loqui". --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Why ablative? "Loqui" is often followed by the name of a language turned into an adverb (latine, anglice, etc), but it normally takes a direct object in the accusative. And "quavis" (or "quamvis" actually) would work for "whatever", but it doesn't replace a verb, so you'd need to repeat "vis", or "malis" or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Perhaps "Qualibet lingua loquere". (Not "loqui", that's the infinitive.) Iblardi (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, true, I thought the infinitive can be used as an imperative sometimes, but maybe not. But do you mean that it should be followed by the ablative (qualibet), not the accusative (quamlibet)? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The construction with ablative is normal as far as I know. Cf. Nepos, Alcibiades: "omnium Graeca lingua loquentium ditissimum", Plinius Maior, Naturalis historia: "propria, non Indorum, lingua loquentes", etc. Iblardi (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lewis and Short gives numerous examples with the accusative, but you're right, examples with "lingua" specifically are ablative. Must be the proper classical construction - in medieval/ecclesiastical Latin it can certainly take the accusative, even for "lingua". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hindi

Original: यह अमेरिका है. बोलो जो भाषा आप चाहते हैं.

"Whatever" part is missing and either it should be "बोलो" with "हो" or "बोलें" with "हैं". So, I think it should be either "बोलो जो भी भाषा आप चाहते हो" or "बोलें जो भी भाषा आप चाहते हैं" (this last one gives a sense of honor, which is used in Hindi widely, depending on whom you are referring to). And, in Hindi Purna Virama (English: "to stop") is used instead of period. So, another correction is to replace periods with Purna Viramas, "यह अमेरिका है। बोलो जो भी भाषा आप चाहते हो।" or "यह अमेरिका है। बोलें जो भी भाषा आप चाहते हैं।". — Bill william compton^Talk 16:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also be "अमरीका"? Just maybe how Swahili is using "Marekani". (I don't know Swahili. So unless the Swahili symbol "M" is pronounced as English "A" and so on...अमेरिका is okay to have.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, both "अमरीका" and "अमेरिका" are used in Hindi, isn't it? — Bill william compton^Talk 03:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The right Hindi word would be "अमरीका". "अमेरिका" is just writing "America" in Devnagri script. Just like "चीन" and "चाइना" for the country China. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"यह अमेरिका है। कहिये आप कौन सी भाषा चाहते हैं?" is the correct translation, word बोलो (bolo) will be considered, rude in this sentence. Dinesh smita (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's completely wrong Dinesh smita. "Speak whatever language you want." is to be translated in Hindi. Not "Say, which language you want?" §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case correct translation would be "यह अमेरिका है। आप कोई भी भाषा बोल सकते हैं।", is it correct now?Dinesh smita (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No! This becomes "You may speak any language." §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Czech

Original: Tohle je Amerika. Mluv, co jazyk, který chcete.

The Czech should read "To je Amerika. Mluvte v jakémkoliv jazyce, co chcete" or "...Mluv v jakémkoliv jazyce, co chceš". It still sounds a bit unnatural in my opinion, there's probably a better way of saying it similar to the "dowolnym językem" in the Polish. But the big big error is that "mluv" (singular) and "chcete" (plural) don't agree. - filelakeshoe 17:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Portuguese

Original: Esta é a América. Falar qualquer língua que você deseja.

O correto seria: "Esta é a América. Fale a língua que deseja." !Silent (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Correcting even further: "Isto é a América. Fale a língua que desejar" or "Isto é a América. Fale a língua que quiser". I would pick the second sentence; although both "querer" and "desejar" are correct translations for "to wish", "querer" is less formal. Polyethylen (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Polish

Original: To jest Ameryka. Mów dowolnym językiem.

You might want to use "mówcie" rather than "mów" to be consistent with using the plural. - filelakeshoe 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Icelandic

Original: Þetta er Ameríka. Tala hvað tungumál sem þú vilt.

Thai

Original: นี่คืออเมริกา พูดสิ่งที่ภาษาที่คุณต้องการ

The first clause is just okay. But the last clause is weird from English. I suggest this sentence instead:

"นี่คืออเมริกา พูดภาษาอะไรก็ได้ที่คุณต้องการ" --Octra Bond (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A piece of advice, Thai language does not commonly use full stop at the end of sentence. So you do not need to add it on. --Octra Bond (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian (Serbo-Croatian)

Original: To je Amerika. Govoriti što god jezik želite.

That verb definitely isn't imperative, by my totally useless knowledge of BCS it should be "govorite", not "govoriti". - filelakeshoe 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. I think a possibility for the second sentence is "Govorite koji god jezik želite." (with "koji god" and not "što god"). Since Serbo-Croatian makes the T–V distinction, this variant is either formal, plural, or both; the informal singular would be: "Govori koji god jezik želiš." --Theurgist (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A more natural expression would read "Ovo je Amerika. Govorite jezikom kojim želite." (Or "Govori jezikom kojim želiš" for a less formal version). "Ovo" is true demonstrative (implying that we are in America), while "To" is more a relative pronoun (That what we're talking about). For the second part, jezikom kojim is in Instrumental case, implying that the language is a tool for communication, rather than its object (Govorite jezik koji želite.), which is in Accusative case. Theurgist's version is not incorrect, just slightly unnatural. My version omits god, which roughly translates to -ever, but I sense it as redundant. If you insist on it, the full version would read "Ovo je Amerika. Govorite kojim god jezikom želite." No such user (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagalog (Filipino)

Original: Ito ay America. Magsalita anumang wika ang nais mo.

Ito ay Amerika. Magsalita ng anumang wikang nais mo. (Tagalog spelling of America)--Mananaliksik (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The "ay" should be "ang", which sounds better. Technically, this is "ay ang", but the "ay" can be dropped. The first sentence then can read Ito ang Amerika, and the rest of the sentence is correct. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

But you are slightly changing the first sentence of the original slogan which is "This is America." 'Ito ang Amerika' means "This is the Amerika." For the second sentence, "Speak whatever language you want.", Speak is an imperative verb therefore we always have to have the pronoun 'ka' (you) after the verb. 'Nais' is okay, but 'naisin' invokes a 'want' with more intent. So, in my opinion, it should be Ito ay Amerika. Magsalita ka anumang wika ang naisin mo. Briarfallen (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The "ang" in the sentence refers to the fact that the "Amerika" that we refer to is the United States. Technically, the full sentence would be Ito ay ang Estados Unidos ng Amerika, with the "ay" and the "Estados Unidos" being completely optional. So technically, the construction "This is 'the' (United States of) America" in Tagalog is grammatically correct. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying you are wrong. They are both grammatically correct. I am only accurately translating the original English slogan ("This is America. Speak whatever language you want.") without changing its informal and light spirit, therefore I would say, Ito ay Amerika. Magsalita ka anumang wika ang naisin mo.. We Filipinos also informally call the United States as Amerika just like Americans who informally call themselves from America, though technically not accurate. The correct translation to use is up to the originator of this poster whether he wants to use 'This is America' (Ito ay Amerika) or 'This is the America' (Ito ang Amerika).Briarfallen (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Because I came in late and I'm trying to see how I can help here :P) I come from Bulacan province, which is mostly Tagalog-speaking, so...if it were up to me, I would translate it to "Ito ang Amerika. Magsalita [ka] sa anumang wikang nais mo" (or "...sa kahit na anong wikang nais mo") :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Briarfallen, I'm Filipino too (from Manila, but with heritage from deeply Tagalog Marinduque), so I don't see why your statement presumes that I'm not a Filipino. :|

However, I digress. If I were to use the argument of one of my Filipino professors, the 'ay' construction (such as "Ang hidroheno ay...") is a "foreign" construction brought over during Spanish colonization. Whether or not that's true is something that is foreign to me, but his statement has a point: the construction "Ito ay Amerika" would be better said as "Amerika ito". However, such a statement is, in terms of tone, not befitting of the poster: the tone is too direct and, in some cases, may be overly harsh to some ears. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Amerika is extremely informal which contributes to why it sounds awkward. Kinda like saying the pidgin Djirmani (Germany) instead of Alemanya. Or "UK" instead of Britanya. It should be like in Spanish: Ito ang Estados Unidos., where the use of ang is more natural. The full name of Estados Unidos ng Amerika, however is overly pedantic and never actually used. Estados Unidos by itself is sufficient. And yes. The second sentence is imperative. It should have ka. And without the use of sa (or ng), it sounds almost telegraphic. IMO it should be: Ito ang Estados Unidos. Magsalita ka sa anumang wikang nais mo.--203.84.180.42 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Welsh

Original: Mae hyn yn America. Siarad beth bynnag iaith y dymunwch.

I've a feeling the Welsh ought to have the relative particle "a dymunwch" rather than the normal particle "y dymunwuch". --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

It looks very awkward to me. I'd try "Dyma America. Siaradwch pa iaith a dymunwch chi". -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian

Original: Це Америка. Говориме все, що мову ви хочете.

Ukrainian: Це Амеріка. Розмовляйте будь-якою мовою. This is "speak any language", literal translation is awkward: Це Амеріка. Розмовляйте якою бажаєте мовою. 99.113.32.198 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Actually, it's "Америка", not "Амеріка". So. Це Америка. Розмовляйте будь-якою мовою. --216.239.45.130 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Klingon

Original: vam 'oH 'amerI'qa' SepjljQa'. jatlh vay' Hol SoH neH.

Can someone figure out where this one is from? If they used Google Translate for most languages, it seems strange they also have a Klingon sentence, given that Google Translate doesn't give one. Or is this just random Klingon gibberish and the creator of the poster hopes people won't notice that? – b_jonas 15:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dutch

Original: Dit is Amerika. Spreek de taal u wilt.

The Dutch one doesn't capture the "whatever" part, and uses the formal "u". If that's what you want, I would suggest "Dit is Amerika. Spreek welke taal u maar wilt.". The informal version would then be "Dit is Amerika. Spreek welke taal je maar wil." Thayts (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

And additionally, it is incorrect or at the least very awkward Dutch. Correct would be "Spreek de taal die u wilt", but the translations by Thayts are better. - Lindert (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Spreek welke taal je maar wilt", surely, with a second person ending. (Paradigm: "ik wil, jij wilt, hij wil", etc.) Iblardi (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Both "je wil" and "je wilt" are correct [6]. Compare "je kan", "je kunt". Thayts (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Apparently it's considered informal, but not incorrect. I would have considered "je kan" wrong too. Iblardi (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Albanian

Original: Kjo është Amerika. Fol çfarëdo gjuhë që ju dëshironi.

A better translation would be "Kjo është Amerika. Flisni çfarëdo gjuhe që të dëshironi!" -  Euriditi  16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Can the plural in the second sentence be made singular by replacing "flisni" and "të dëshironi" with "fol" and "të dëshirosh"? --Theurgist (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it could be used but plural form sounds better. -  Euriditi  18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Japanese

Original: これがアメリカです。あなたの好きな言語話す。

The first sentence is OK. The second one is incorrect. It should be "好きな言語で話せばいいのです。", "好きな言語で話してください。", or "好きな言語でお話しください。". Oda Mari (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As there is no context and I have no idea if it's a written or a spoken language, it is very difficult to translate naturally. Depending on the context, it might be more natural to use "Here/ここは" instead of "This/これが". Oda Mari (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Mari, is it impossible for あなたの好きな言語で話す to be an imperative ("speak in the language you like/want")? I thought in the past I had seen base-form verbs used as a type of imperative... 86.179.2.105 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

あなたの好きな言語で話す is understandable and grammatically correct , but awkward like "Me Tarzan, you Jane" or a line of a stupid robot. Imperative sounds high-handed and is inappropriate in this case. The imperative of the sentence should be 好きな言語で話せ or 好きな言語で話しなさい. Just 話す is incorrect. If you add んだ to the end, 話すんだ, it would be OK in a conversation, but it is still high-handed like a line a detective says to a suspect. Additionally, it is more natural without あなた in the imperative mood of the sentence. Oda Mari (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. 86.179.1.81 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see アメリカ rather than the kanji for Beikoku ("rice country"). —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised. 米国 is formal or old-fashioned (to my L2 speaker ears), although the 米国 (bei) half of it remains common in compounds (日米, 在米, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oda Mari approves これがアメリカです。 as the first half; and for the second recommends one or other of:

1. 好きな言語で話せばいいのです。
2. 好きな言語で話してください。
3. 好きな言語でお話しください。

My L1 Japanese informant suggests a change in the first half to これはアメリカです。and is happy with either the first or the second of the three choices for the second half. -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC) What are L1 and L2? I presume they are short for "level 1" and "level 2"? But is 1 better than 2or worse? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "L1" native language and "L2" second language? 86.160.209.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Yes, "L1" and "L2" are first language and second language respectively; sorry about the jargon. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, I was at loss which particle was correct and thought about it for a few minutes. I prefer "ここは" to "これは". I am still not sure what is the correct translation. Probably because it seems to me the original sentence is not reasonable. America is not the only one country in the world you can speak whatever language you want. Are there any countries you cannot? If you cannot speak the official language (or the major language) in any countries, it's very inconvenient. But that's all. The original sentence does not make sense to me. Oda Mari (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of the sentiment is that America has no official language. - filelakeshoe 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, sort of. This is America is sort of a fixed phrase evoking the national idea that the United States is the home of liberty. I don't think it would change the point much if there were an official language, and it also doesn't imply that any particular other country has actual laws against speaking non-approved languages (though there are a few such countries, I think). It strikes me more as a rebuke to people who object to foreign languages, whether or not those objectors would actually want to codify anything into law. "This is a free country, so ignore anyone who wants to give you a hard time about what language you speak". --Trovatore (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Then I say "the major language" instead. America is regarded as an English speaking country, isn't it? Oda Mari (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is the majority, but the US is not as monolingual as a lot of people think. As well as 225 million native English speakers there are also 37 million native Spanish speakers and a lot of English-Spanish bilingualism in the south, 2.1 million French speakers many of whom are concentrated in a French-speaking community in New Orleans (and other such communities who hold onto "old world" languages can be found in many parts of the country). This contrasts greatly with the UK, which has 57 million L1 English speakers, and the second most spoken L1 is Punjabi with only about 600,000, practically all of whom are immigrants. - filelakeshoe 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a metaphorical expression of promoting diversity. For the first half, I definitely recommend ここはアメリカです. As for the second half, the first translation is colloquial so never used for a poster. The second translation is rather instructive. So the third translation is the best, i.e. "Please feel free to speak whatever language you want." More honorific expression お好きな言語でお話しください is much better. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix, you surprise me. お好きな言語でお話しください sounded to me like store sales clerk language -- and in ostensibly egalitarian America this would seem especially out of place. Still, Japanese is not a first language for me, and therefore my reaction to this or that snippet of putative Japanese is close to worthless. So without prejudicing by giving my own guesstimate or even using a disdainful intonation, I asked the resident native speaker of Japanese. She confirmed my reaction: that this is idiomatic but somewhat obsequious Japanese; in order to avoid the sound of servility, drop the initial お, to result in 好きな言語でお話しください. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised, Hoary. Yes it may be store sales clerk language. My impression is if we use 好きな言語で, then 話してくださいwill follow. If we use お・・ください, we usually say お好きな席におかけください, お好きなものをご注文ください, お好きなようにお呼びください. We do not say 好きな席におかけください, 好きなものをご注文ください, 好きなようにお呼びください instead we say 好きな席に座ってください, 好きなものを注文してください, 好きなように呼んでください. I think お好きな・・を、お・・ください is a general usage. Anyway if you don't like honorific expression, how about ここはアメリカだ。　君たちの好きな言葉で話しなさい。―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ここ is correct; it is a place marker, while これ is for things. は and が emphasize different parts of the sentence, because が is a subject marker, and は a topic marker - "This is America" is the sense for が. は will give "This is America, but it's really not that strong; it just doesn't emphasize the first part of the sentence as が does. The second sentence should perhaps be 好きな言語にしろう, or 好きな言語にして, and ください or くれ wouldn't really be out of place at the end either. Moreover, keep in mind that poster language　will tend to be more polite, as it is a general public item, regardless of the point it is trying to make; language protocol still applies. Also, there's some transference here - one cannot take Japanese language out of its culture insofar as egalitarianism has nothing to do with usage. Straight imperatives can come out as "rough" (乱暴 for those who know what I'm getting at), largely because they're associated with either authority (or gross disregard thereof). Trying for parallelism may be the problem, because the grammar just doesn't work the same as romance languages. ここはアメリカなんだから、好きな原語にしてください would work just as well, largely because of the すきにして "do as you like" construction that's in there, which I think is the intent. The problem with asking a native speaker about the sense of language is that they are trying to explain it to a foreigner, and what might sound "obsequious" is in fact entirely OK, because Japanese is so context-dependent and doesn't always have rigid connotations unless one really goes overboard with 警護, in which case it comes across as insulting in certain contexts. お<something>ください used to a friend, for example, is the same as saying something like "If it please your highness" in English, which is usually derogatory or hyperbolic when used amongst friends. MSJapan (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Chinese

The Chinese sentence is in traditional Chinese, and it says "This is America. What language do you want to speak." (The second sentence is a question but is ended with a full stop, not a question mark.) I can't think of a simple direct idiomatic translation of the English message, but perhaps something like "这里是美国。说你想说的语言。" (in simplified Chinese; the traditional Chinese equivalent is "這裡是美國。說你想說的語言。") -- This is more or less idiomatic and translates literally to "This (here) is America (country, not continent). Speak the language that you want to speak." I think this captures the idea being conveyed relatively well while still being idiomatic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Korean

Original: 여긴 미국입니다. 당신이 원하는대로 언어를 구사합니다.

• 여긴 미국입니다. 그냥 쓰고 싶은 언어를 쓰시면 됩니다. --Kjoonlee 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

English

Original: This is America. Speak whatever language you want.

To me, "Speak whichever language you want" seems better. 194.176.105.138 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments not specific to a language

This is a list of all languages in the poster, from top to bottom:

• French
• Spanish
• German
• Italian
• Russian
• Hebrew
• Greek
• Arabic
• Swahili
• Vietnamese
• Swedish
• Lithuanian
• Latin
• Hindi
• Czech
• Portuguese
• Polish
• Icelandic
• Thai
• Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian (Serbo-Croatian)
• Tagalog (Filipino)
• Welsh
• Ukrainian
• Klingon
• Dutch
• Albanian
• Japanese
• Chinese
• Korean
• English (original)

With almost all languages I'm familiar with, there is something that definitely strikes me as wrong. However, in most cases, I don't have the enough level of fluency to provide decent and natural-sounding translations. My language isn't there. --Theurgist (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Thanks for identifying the languages. – b_jonas 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Are these the result of machine translation ? If so it would be nice to know the original text (I am assuming English going by the errors) and which system was used. - Francis Tyers · 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC) (M)

Yes, it seems most of the translations are taken from Google Translate verbatim. – b_jonas 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To expand, most of the translation seem to be taken from Google Translate verbatim, translating the original English sentence "This is America. Speak whatever language you want.". You get the BSC sentence by translating to Croatian. The Dutch sentence seems to be taken from Yahoo Babelfish for some reason (or this could be a coincidence). I don't know where the Klingon sentence is from, as Google Translate does not currently seem to offer that language. Did it use to? – b_jonas 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

We must beware of mistranslations that could modify the meaning of the last part (and sometimes actually have modified it already) as "a language you desire or want to have", as opposed to the actual "a language you want to speak". --Theurgist (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

quite telling that there isn't a single American language on the poster... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not 100% certain, but I believe all were machine translations (Google or otherwise) - even the Klingon. I very much like the sentiment, but would like it to be accurate so I can create my own version. If anyone wants to add additional languages, feel free.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (OP)

Personally (and not after close perusal of instructions at the top of this page, etc), I'm happy to see the "question" and happy to see it answered -- necessarily, at some length. But I wouldn't rush to denounce as unreasonable an objection that this isn't a normal question and instead is a pile of questions, answering which properly would require an inordinate amount of space. As it is, some of the proposed versions have received only tentative, non-native-speaker comments, and others have received no comments at all. How much more commentary would be appropriate? IFF a lot, then it would seem a good idea to advertise the question at WikiProject Albania and the rest. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Rebel

Can somebody speaking French have a look at Ariel Rebel#Her name is meant to sound like 'A real rebel'. and the linked podcast? It's a French podcast and Ariel Rebel speaks about the pronunciation of her name. She seems to prefer it pronounced French and mentions the Wikipedia article. Based on that a user removed the sentence Her name is meant to sound like 'A real rebel'. The user who removed the sentence only did this one edit and will probably not read the talk page and my French is too bad to really understand the discussion in the podcast. But it seems very obvious that "Ariel Rebel" is indeed a wordplay on "A real rebel" and it would be nice if somebody could listen to the podcast and tell what exactly she said and how we can edit the article to properly reflect it in the article. --::Slomox:: >< 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The guy pronounces it "a real rebel" and she says no, someone put that on Wikipedia, but it's wrong. She explains that she pronounces it the normal French way (three syllables). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, information of that kind requires a secondary source. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If she said in her podcast that someone put that on Wikipedia, but it's wrong (I didn't listen to the podcast, I'm just going with what Adam Bishop said), I would think that that's a fairly reputable source that it was NOT meant to sound like "a real rebel", at least in the absense of more reliable sources that say otherwise. Falconus^{p t c} 10:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but as I said on the talk page it's a quite obvious wordplay on "a real rebel" even if she prefers a pronunciation that obscures the origin. The article should probably reflect that. --::Slomox:: >< 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that obvious, is it? She doesn't say anything about that in the podcast. Maybe she just liked the Little Mermaid. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)